---
# System prepended metadata

title: DAOhaus Sustainability Report
tags: [' v3', ' magesmiths', product]

---

---
tags: product, v3, magesmiths
---

# DAOhaus Sustainability Report 

This report was created as part of the [Product Vision & Strategy meetings](https://hackmd.io/MYklAK8iSMefpMjTMiR5rw?view). This survey is geared towards gathering sentiment from warcamp on directions for sustainability. This is likely one of a few steps in gathering sentiment from the group.  

Also, this is a condensed report of the entire survey response data. We recommend going to look through those in detail:
[Full responses can be seen here](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1jqJC-OiyHagWpGJ-j2X6bSZYJOouZ5tRQhkt4dW6rzI/edit?usp=sharing)

[Working Figjam Board](
https://www.figma.com/file/lMCys8v476i7iGU4TknVY0/DH-SustainabilityWhiteboard?node-id=0%3A1)

<mark>Upcoming discussion on this will occur Friday May 27th @ 10am PST</mark>

## Intro
In order to understand our vision for sustainability, we need a definition of sustainability from each respective DAO member. There were two distinct categories that emerged from this question.

Here's a breakdown of those categories: 

#### Just Enough (40%)
> 'Consistently generating the necessary resources to continue maintaining and developing the DAOhaus Ecosystem indefinitely.'

#### Geared for growth (53%)
> 'Able to pay contributors, grow treasury and invest in new projects'

> 'DAOhaus is "sustainable" when its development, maintenance, and community activities are funded without relying on external sources. However, while sustainability is necessary, it is not sufficient to fulfilling our mission. If we want to expand access to trust-minimized governance to communities all over the world, we need not only enough resources to sustain, but also to grow.'

We are virtually all in agreement that sustainability means that at least our current DAOhaus expenses are met. However, there are two camps within this agreement. On one side, a large minority of members believe that our revenue should maintain our existing size and expenses while meeting existing demands. A slightly larger majority wants to optimize for growth. 

## Public Goods Detailed Analysis

### What is a ‘public good’? Are we still a ‘public good’ if we charge fees?

On these questions, we felt like we could group our respondents into three categories. 

1) Fees exclude us from being a public good (32%). 
> "Public goods are things that are non-excludable & non-rivalrous. DAOhaus is a public good but not if we charge fees"

2) No fees for core infra, but maybe elsewhere. (53%)  
> "depends on what fees. The basic DAOhaus app should be free to remain a public good.""

3) Fees for core infra is fine (10%).  
> "Public goods are solutions with a positive societal impact that are accessible to all. As long as it's still affordable to most / all, it can still be a public good and charge for it.""

*(5% of results were murky)*

Once placed into one of these three categories, we were able to arrive at some clear conclusions. 

A clear majority believes that we could charge *some* sort of fee and still remain a public good. However, of that majority, an even stronger majority (83%) believes that we should move those fees away from the core app/protocol and charge for 'extras' or 'premium' non-essential services. 

### Should DAOhaus Be a Public Good?

It's pretty apparent that the DAO believes we should be a public good, though there is a slight difference in motivations for this: 

![](https://i.imgur.com/V2OFh3I.png)


On a personal level, the vast majority of respondents (score of 4 or 5; roughly 69%) believed that it is either very important or pretty important that the product is a public good. 

![](https://i.imgur.com/0960TCl.png)


However, when it comes to our image we see less fervor. The balance is still in favour of public goods, but the score has shifted towards the center. 

This suggests to us that being a public good is central to many of the members in WarCamp. They agree with it more on a personal or moral level, and the image or external recognition for providing this service is of a much lower priority. 

### What MUST remain a Public Good? 

Again, we're not seeing much of a divide in the DAO. We were able to group the responses in three simple categories. 

1) Just Summon (6%)
> Summoning a DAO
2) Just the Code (29%)
> The contracts and front end must be open source and forkable
3) Basic No Code Platform + Code (47%)
> I'd prefer that the basic no code DAOhaus app be a public good.

*(18% percent of results were too vague to identify a conclusion)*

It's safe to say that the DAO would align around the code remaining open source in perpetuity (no surprise there), and that they could also find agreement that we should provide the core apps for free. This is consistent with the other responses on public goods in the survey thus far. 

### Fixed Choice Public Goods

We also asked what MUST remain a public good while limiting the responses to three items: 

![](https://i.imgur.com/oifVAPR.png)

1) The core Moloch Contracts
2) Periphery contracts
3) Front end interfaces. 

Ultimately an overwhelming majority agreed on preserving the contracts as a public good. 

### Respondent Examples where some part of the product remains a public good. 

In an effort to try to make this data useful to the previous questions about public goods, we separated out responses based on the three types of public goods respondents defined earlier. 

1) Examples that were completely free (19%)
> Linux, Firefox
2) Examples that had fees or revgen on the periphery (37.5%)
> Many open source projects follow this model, such as Vercel. Their infrastructure and open source tooling like Next.js is open and free to use, but they have a fees/services model for their platform itself and heavier hosting features.
3) Examples where fees are baked into core infra (31%)
> Uniswap?

(13% of responses were either too murky or provided too many wide ranging examples)

These results are a little less obvious if we extrapolate the examples this way, but we can see that on the whole, they are more or less in line with previous responses on public goods. 


### Conclusion

In conclusion, it should be safe to assume that the DAO will align on being a public good. We generally agree on a 'freemium' style model where fees are charged for specialty services, boosts, extras, bolt-ons, and B2B services as opposed to charging for the core protocol, and we should do all this while providing the core service for free.  


## Broad View on Mechanisms


### Marketplace
The marketplace opinions generally acknowledged that it highly aligns with our values, but pursuing this is a lot of work and difficult to get off the ground. Overall, people were generally in favor, but it needs some dedicated thought on how and when to pursue. 

#### Good idea (27%)
> 'A platform/marketplace is the holy grail of software. It allows teams to build the infrastructure while others find creative ways to monetize it... Requiring the core team to identify these opportunities and build out the applications is unreasonable...Unfortunately, multi-sided markets are the most difficult business model to get right.'
https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/how-to-win-with-a-multisided-platform-business-model/ 

#### Good idea, but let’s do later (11%)
> 'We may need to pursue this later down the road, rather than as our primary strategy - and pick other sources of revenue opportunistically as they become available so we can survive until the audience on both sides is built up (market buyers and market sellers).'

#### Good idea, but there are risks (33%)
> '...this approach requires that the total DAOhaus economy be large enough to support a marketplace / peripheral ecosystem with enough value flowing through to for a small portion of that to fund DAOhaus core development. I suspect that that minimum economy size be quite large.'
> 
> 'These seem the most difficult to coordinate, but could be best for the 'community'.'

#### Not a good idea (16%)
> 'Probably not a large enough market to sustain daohaus'

> 'There are a lot logistical obstacles associated with this approach'

Outliers mention a Service DAO oriented marketplace and maybe this isn’t our place to build. 

### Protocol Fee

General opinion is mixed (44% positive), but there is alignment that if there is fees, they should have a bit of nuance with our choices and communication about it to the community. **No one thinks that a straight protocol fee added is a good idea without careful positioning or thought.** 

#### Let's do it, but with care (44%)
> 'I do think that summoning DAOs (in a simplified form perhaps) should be free. Our users have come to expect this, so perhaps a protocol fee could relate to adding on additional customization similarly to how this could work in a Marketplace model.'

> 'We would need to be able to clearly define the protocol in a way to justify such a fee, and it would be best if the fee was directly related to value provided so it wasn't a burden on those who set up DAOs without much value creation.'
#### Good, but risky (16%)
> 'This could be the most powerful, but also the most dangerous. Gnosis Safe, Snapshot, Orca, and all the other hundred DAO platforms being built right now may make themselves available without protocol fees. If that's the case, then we may not be able to compete with an equivalent or near-equivalent free solution.'

>'Love the idea of projects built on top of DH infra that might collect some fees like Yeeter. Don't think our core infra should have fees associated.'
#### Not a good idea (22%)
> 'I'd prefer that DAOhaus remains a public good. I can see the upside of a fee but I don't think it is aligned with our values. A fee could deter users.'

#### Subscription specifically a good idea (11%)
> 'Subscription fee for some advanced features seems to make sense. Approaching it as a freemium model to support development while being able to trial features with the open source options.'

### Public Goods Funding
A lot of mixed opinions on public goods funding, with weight toward 'yes, let's do it' -- opinions in this category generally note this may not provide enough to cover operations. Many would see this as an adjunct to another revenue model (see public goods breakdown above) 

Another general thread throughout is being a public good aligns with our messaging and values and that we currently provide value to the ecosystem as a public good.

#### Yes, let’s do it (33%)
> 'I think this fits our narrative the best. Maintains access for all to summoning/running moloch daos. Maintains ability to receive public goods funding. Maintains access/support to a larger public goods coalition(s) in the ecosystem. Main risk is unknown amounts/sources/timelines of resources. Maybe sustains our values more than resources.'

>'This feels like a great supplement to sustainability -- maybe a way to fund major improvements.'

#### Short term, yes (13%)
> 'This is the route we should go in the short term. This is what can sustain us for now and give us more exposure in the public goods space. We run on public goods funding/grants until our token is more liquid and stable and our marketplace starts picking up.'

#### Some risk (26%)
>'This could be very cool, but is going to require fighting for attention against a lot of big name players in the space. (Maybe this is something we need to get better at doing anyway.)

> 'Seems unreliable because we're dependent on Gitcoin, Clr, Optimism, or whoever is running the retro public goods systems to be able to bring in matching donors and then we have to run a successful campaign every time.'

#### Too Risky (33%)
> 'Public goods funding can be nice bonus every now and then but should not be considered sustainable. DAOhaus is not an NPO. Most charities spend 80% of their resources on raising money rather than making the impact they claim to care about.'


### B2B Fees
Overwhelming positive to this option. A straight  yes, let’s do it made up 64%. The responses to this option had the clearest sense of how to achieve this as a revenue option, with many ideas thrown in as well. 

#### Yes, let's do it (64%)
> 'General: In my opinion the most sustainable. Many open source companies take this approach
Tradeoff: Large startup costs to build the infra and teams necessary to provide good support.
Examples: Red Hat, Nx and so many more.'

> 'There is massive potential for us to market directly to other DAOs who can extend/integrate our tooling into their models. We have an advantage for having been around for several years and that we've thoroughly vetted our tooling. We could lean into this more heavily through B2B sales of our product access, or even as a consultation stream where we work directly with other DAOs for setup/product guidance/etc. This may also allow us to remain 'free to use' to individual users, similar to many SaaS platforms.'

#### Yes, but there are some risks (35%) 
> 'Charging for custom UIs and specialized features may stretch us thin, but this is the type of work that can support core development by charging those most able to pay for it.'

> 'I think this is an opportunity as well, but currently we do not have the rails or operational support to do this right now.'

#### Not a good idea (0%)
> none ＼(＾▽＾)／

### Continous/Periodic Raises

Continuous/Periodic Raises has the highest amount of straight 'Not a good idea' opinions of any category (64%). A good amount also noted that raises divert attention from building for a large chunk of time. 

#### Yes, let's do it (11%)
> 'I think this has a place, and could be fine-tuned over time as well. As the rest of our value offering grows it could become more like sponsorships and investments than just fundraising.'

#### Some risk (29%)
> 'This is a beautiful way to get started but does not feel right as a sustainable model unless we can identify ways to deliver value to contributors. Currently, the mechanism functions more like a donation than an investment. It is nice to have friends and family (an ecosystem) to support us. But there is a limited amount of times we can ask for help before getting cut off.'

> 'This is not something we should plan for. BUT if we do we should just do a VC raise and call it a day. Us continuing to extract from our community is just like us charging them to use our products, so we might as well just implement the protocol fee.'

#### Not a good idea (64%)
> 'Diverts DAOs attention from everything else for about 3 months. Raise amts are relatively low given what we want to accomplish. Massively dilutes HAUS value. Gives core contributors no assurances about where the DAO will be in a year. Gives DAOs low assurances about where we will be.
Eventually the community will not be in the position to be as generous as they were before. The DAOs who use the platform will suffer for it.'

> 'Fundamentally not sustainable bc eventually we'll run out of HAUS to sell. (We've already sold or granted over 50% the original 1MM mint)'

### Conclusions

Here are some visual representation of the reponses we recived on mechanisms. 

![](https://i.imgur.com/DAoZmGe.png)
<sub><sup>Responses to:*How aligned with your values are the following methods for sustainable revenue at DAOhaus? (1 = least aligned, 5 = most aligned)*</sup></sub>

The chart here summarizes that repondants cleary favoured B2B and Marketplace. The opposite could be said for Continuous/periodic raises.  

![](https://i.imgur.com/CR9fo1g.png =x275)
<sub><sup>The charts above are a rough analysis of the overall opinions averaged out per mechanism.</sup></sub>

When gauging risk/effort tradeoff for each method in the survey, it's pretty clear the B2B is a clear outlier and a viable near-term approach. 

Given the responses in the public good section, the DAO seems to see B2B and marketplace as complimentary to a free core protocol. 


## DAOhaus Community

### What is the best method to gather sentiment from our users on these mechanisms?

#### Surveys (47.4%)

> 'Surveys like this are great. We should be asking the community what they want.'

#### User testing and experimentation (26.3%)

> 'Testing with actual experiments. Measuring behaviors rather than what people say. Providing stimuli and seeing the response. Iteration over planning.'

#### Interviews or calls (10.5%)

> 'Interviews with our most active users'

> 'Maybe start some more community calls and reach out to people asking questions in support channels'

#### It is a multi-step process - steps vary (68.4%)

> 'user interviews, then a broader survey / snapshot poll, then more user interviews'

> 'discord, forum, signal voting'

> 'Spread this form to select major contributors, UberHaus delegates. Gather a bit of feedback from smart people beyond Warcamp.
>
>Once we have an idea of a general path, we should create a fleshed-out, detailed strategy to post to every HAUS holder. Light-Haus and Power-haus can vote on them respectively. The proposal should be detailed enough for people to answer 'yes' or 'no' to.'
>

> 'We should ramp up our user testing/feedback cycles across the board -- product research, usability testing, and feedback...'


It is pretty obvious to us that the respondents are looking for a more structured approach to decision making in the DAO. A large majority would prefer a multi-step process where we use many different approaches in an ordered succession. If pressed for a single example, it seems like respondents prefer surveys, then user testing. 

Worth noting that Discord calls ranked very low in this survey. 

### What is the best way to return value to HAUS token holders?

#### More token utility (58%)

Worth noting the division in token utility, which to us highlights the need of much more exploration on the subject. 

- boost marketplace (2)
- staking (2)
- fees (2)
- yield (2)
- curation (1)
- funding (1)
- access (1)
- tipping (1)

> 'Creating a need for the HAUS token to be used in the ecosystem so that the demand is increased with more people using it for their DAOs.'

#### Generating revenue (15.7%)

Again, more exploration is needed here (ex. at what point would this make HAUS a security?). *Security vs Governance Tokens*

> 'Go above sustainable and become profitable and see if that can be translated into the HAUS token price. At some point allow people to sell HAUS, holding forever means no benefit aside from being nice to us.'

#### UH treasury diversification (5.9%)

> 'Diversification of the UberHaus treasury, so that the reserve assets backing HAUS are as valuable if not more valuable than HAUS tokens themselves.'

#### Make token price to go up (11.8%)

See concerns in Generating revenue model. 

> 'token price reflects actual/perceived value creation'


### What role does Warcamp vs. UberHaus play in the decision making for this?

#### UberHaus should be making decisions (56.3%)


> 'Warcamp can make recommendations and propose directions, but UberHaus must decide'

#### Warcamp & UH should work together (25%)

> 'Both DAOs should agree on a solution (pass Signal proposal) before we implement.'

#### Warcamp should be making decisions (18.8%)

> 'War Camp should make the decision. Uberhaus participants aren't close enough to the problem.

Overall, the many respondants felt that Uberhaus should be making the final revgen decisions instead of Warcamp. However, Uberhaus needs further development and a dedicated team focused on revgen and honouring token holders.

For further exploration, we need to map out the relationships and decision-making formats between DAOs. Also it's important that we establish whether or not we're aiming to make just Warcamp sustainable, or the DAOhaus ecosystem as a whole. 

Finally, we need clarification on the roles that each respective DAO plays in the ecosystem and where the decisions are made. We need to address tensions between Warcamp and Uberhaus on involvement, participation, compensation, and utlimately decision-making. 

NOTE: No matter what, we (warcamp) are not making a final decision, we are making a proposal. For Friday's meeting we need to discuss if UH is ready for a proposal like this, or if we should wait for the reorg. 

Another point is that we in proposing and discussing with UH, we need pay particular attention to those outside of the immediate Warcamp circle. 



## Conclusions

### Honorable Mentions, extra questions/concerns
- Was this process useful? Is it worth the cost? 
- What are our values and principles?
> 'I'm curious what will happen with all of this information. I typed a lot... if that's repeated 10-30 times then it's a big pile of information that... does what? Informs the next meeting? I'd like to see a team formed that is going to process the feedback and then take action, even if there's some disagreement. DAOs ought to be nimble, but they seem big and clumsy to me. Decisions should be informed by values & principles, and also what's likely to work. We can agree on principles more easily than we agree on methodology. What are our values & principles? Are those being held up to our plans?'
- Feedback from users and community 
> 'My main concerns for identifying a sustainability strategy is that we lack product direction (market fit / user personas) and too much power is consolidated in warcamp. Both of these things make it hard to identify what our best way forward truly is.'

> 'Who do we want to serve and how best can we serve them? Take some the focus away from what do I want and over to how I can serve the communities that use DAOhaus. This includes sustainability, cuz it's incredibly challenging to serve communities when there's no funding.'
- Saving money is also making money
> 


### Finally, Should We Implement a Revgen strategy? 

To help us get the clearest answer to this question, we decided to merge the last two questions of the survey (dangers of not deciding on revgen, and dangers of implmenting) as the differences between the two sets of responses were pretty minimal. 

We were able to categorize the responses into four broad categories. 

1. Existential Risk (40%) 
> 'I have seen the skeletons of sites that didn't succeed at becoming sustainable. They still function, but they are outdated, unused, and irrelevant, because they failed to establish value within their window of opportunity.'

> 'The DAO tooling conversation has exploded. We have years of experience and knowledge behind our platform and product, but we're already not as included in these conversations as we should be. I'd worry that if we don't begin more actively pursuing sustainability ideas that we may continue to be left behind despite our incredible talent, knowledge, and effectiveness of our product.'

2. Loss of Competive Advantage (25%)
> 'The biggest risk is making choices that close off value accrual options that would have been the right choice.'

> 'I'd worry that if we don't begin more actively pursuing sustainability ideas that we may continue to be left behind despite our incredible talent, knowledge, and effectiveness of our product.'
3. Better to wait (2%) 
> 'We can wait to implement solutions, but we must have a good idea of where we are heading first.'

This category was common, but didn't necessarily answer the question

4. We should iterate and try things out (14%)
>  'As we grow consensus will be even more difficult. The earlier we start the more we can learn and fail without huge consequences'

>  'Waiting? Or just unable to make a decision because we're stuck in a consensus model? If it's tactical waiting, then maybe... but justify it. But let's be real on if we are actually gridlocked and not nimble enough to just try things.''


A large percentage felt that ignoring revgen or waiting would be an exsitential risk to the platform, while many felt that it would only cause us to lose a competitive advantage. 

It's definitely worth noting that of all the resposnses (98%) were in favour of acting on revenue in whatever capacity. 

## Discussion Notes - May 27, 2022 

- Bau: In your view, looking at this macro level, how do you see our current strategy and approach aligning with this?
        - Jord: we'll have to do more of a breakdown, we'll have to create initiatives, start looking at previous and post mortems and see where went wrong, market appetite - what are people looking for? Inventory of what we can offer, maybe there is more here we can offer that we know of. Introspection, formation, inventory
    - Bau: what amos is doing with devrel - seems like a clear translation of our goals here. Another thing - doing a retrospective on daostillery. How do we improve upon or create a strategy for doing B2B 
    - Jord: yeah, I can see devrel as a way we tackle this 
- Spencer: suggest framing for conversation - think that in the short run, the biggest impact this discussion can have is for the following - to correlate with what we are building now - does it align with the tactics that we are doing now? We don't want to be doing something that would cut off some of these avenues
    - If any of the current roadmap is counter to any of this, we should be pivoting 
    - Are we comfortable with the overall direction? Are we on the path to make these things possible? Avoid how to do this, and align on general direction
-  Jord: When people read data or conclusions - are they coming to the same conclusions we (report builders) are? Like B2B being actionable 
	-   Dekan: agree with all that stuff. The B2B and the value coming in with peripherals (can be whatever, like NFT projects). The core should be open and really what we need to focus on first even before B2B - but that should probably ramp up in parallel. #1 priority: get core up and running. The product that can enable building, not necessarily just the UI. 
        -  Put everything into this protocol/platform, then we can really focus on B2B and peripheral apps 
    - Jord: AWS as example - they have on one hand software tools and infrastructure but also have dashboards that you can interact with 
        - the core ui are the dashboards vs. the data libraries
    - if we are making a core infra public good, we want to encourage others to build on top of this - collaborative competition, not a direct competitor 
    - Jord: Summon/hub seem like essentials - consider those core 
    - Spencer: some of those are essential now, because people haven't built them yet, but people could build better tools like this. This is fine as long as it's built on top of our stuff and value flows to us 
    - Dekan: If someone builds these, we want people to build them – many of them. The tools are in competition with each other 
        - initially they are core, because how would we do B2B without this? 
    - Jord: what we are doing currently and what might need to change - obviously this is just a report - we need to make that decision as a DAO and ratify an approach 
        - One thing probably needs to change for B2B - we need to shift some of our community outreach and marketing output toward that. Listening to what our clients would like and services that would help them 
        - e2t: that is the furthest away from our core competency now - marketing communication is critical to a sales process and it takes time to build relationships. There is multiple calls and contracts, if we are to be serious about this, we are going to have to pull in or change roles to support this 
        - Jord: we should consider how much focus and effort this will require to make this work. It will be tough
        - Dekan: I wonder if some of this is because of our focus - right now, it’s building. At some point we need to shift our focus to being a service dao. Seen success from spencer/travis/amos - boots on the ground and get everyone's focus on this - the core would be more skeleton team managing that. As a group shift into this biz dev 
        - Spencer: This is what I meant earlier. We don't need to implement actual things yet, or pressure to do so as long as our current plan is in line with possible future goals. Yes, biz dev we will need to shift, but my point right now is we don't need to make that shift now. As long as our roadmap is aligned.
        - Jord: tomorrow maybe not, but there is some urgency. Organically waiting on this probably won’t work, we need to have a concerted effort right now 
        - Spencer: reframe: the timing of what we do, depends on the value at that time + what we are equipped to do 
            - the ones that make sense now or in the next few months vs longer term will be different 
            - Right now: yeeter focus, vs later 
        - Jord: it’s fortunate that the current dev roadmap is useful to the vision we are talking about here 
            - marketplace makes it easy for boost and add ons 
            - fees on periphery model
            - also good for B2B, building sort of custom DAO interfaces
            - also that feedback would speed up and hone our building ability as well 
        - Sam: I’m having a disconnect in a B2B and a paired down core + marketplace. With the market providing ui additions to our core, how does that work with B2B?
            - Ven: there could be a blending of the line. some B2B becoming marketplace, behaving like marketplace fees as well. 
- Ven: super great report, like the alignment. Really great to see. The B2B marketplace it all aligns well. 
- Dekan: lot of good feedback on this - it's a hard problem, but maybe it's a timing thing too 
    - Ven: market main issue is the network effect / B2B is low volume transactions, but high value / Market is high volume, low value
- Dekan: we want to allow for a free DAO launcher and core ui 
    - if we are going to allow for custom DAO interfaces for large companies or communities. Is making this free a problem or where is the cut off - telling them you'll need the custom package now 
        - is just letting them make a DAO and as they grow they want the nice custom stuff now that they have money?
- Jord: we've learned a lot and we can use that to help people - I think with B2B, there is a wide array of tools to help simplify and guide them. Community org or more dedicated tech support. Simpler bolt on - core ui has more functionality, but what they have is a streamlined interface that does there thing well. 
    - e2t: also has Security and compliance. They are not paying for a fresh mvp. This is tried and true. Would be able to get 'approval' on this 
    - Dekan: there might be orgs that have an internal team, we want to build it ourselves, but don't know how. Devrel is very important part of this structure. As much as reaching out to dev community and getting them build things. Letting them build themselves. 
        - we'll build or services to just help them 
    - Jord: we really need devrel - mayb Raid Guild are part of this, for any chance you don't want to build this, we can provide a team that can do this. 
- Community of builders for fun or a boost that knows how to come together. We are not going through some of the daostillery problems on some other big problem. Core tools are get behind
    - Dekan: Spencer’s point- getting too into the 'how this might work' - but good if we want to go this direction - get people thinking about it
- Sam: how do we ratify this? so it can inform how we are doing this
    - et2: get understanding how many resources on each of these workfstreams - like 80% on core and 10% on B2B etc. That’s probably the soonest conclusion we need to come to 
    - Jord: propose we get together a pitch for the DAO - get feedback based on what everyone is thinking for that survey. If we all agree then we move. Pitching super high level mechanics. Hyper focused on shipping first 
    - Spencer: Do we need to ratify this?
    - Sam: ratify - if it will help us focus - like these 8 things aren't important. Helps us decide where we might be bleeding money 
    - Jord: this survey did a lot about what we want, the proposal is more the how 
        - doesn't need to be an exhaustive format, but maybe we need to dial in a few things with another survey. Another plan that we can agree on 
        - transparency and alignment - maybe or maybe not on chain so we all know where we are going 
    - Spencer: when don't need to ratify - less talking about format and more about the specificity of the agreement. I get a little afraid of a plan, setting something in stone. Any single plan isn't likely to succeed. 
        - Jord: group figures out level of specificity 
        - Spencer: let's agree what we are not going to do
- Bau: there are a constellation of things that can be pursued in B2B, and things where we already have created relationships. We have yeeter and continue to push to and market and get value flowing through it and also prove out how B2B can work in that facet. There are a million things we could do. Mapping that could help orient ourselves. But not cemete ourselves down a certain path 
- Plor: more than said 50% of the survey participants should go through uberhaus - so we should consider that 
    - Jord: yes, ratification. Make it’s not too vague to repeat past mistakes  
    - Spencer: make sure we aren't locking ourselves in concrete. If this is a public thing 
    - Jord: let's try to keep this open and find that balance
- Jord: this method for gathering sentiment - voice calls don't feel like we get a solid decision made. People are more articulate in writing, solid arguments. What do you think of the format?
    - Travisw: I think on that note, I think we have arrived at a relative consensus. Even on idea that we don't what to drill down too tightly 
        - any ideas on reasons not to pursue this direction? 
        - considering the cons, the negative ramifications 
            - Dekan: maybe getting a document on where we might fail
            - e2t: figure out if people actually want to do this - major change in direction in how a lot of us arrived here. Individual interest to realize this difference in direction 
            - Spencer: My takeaway is not having even begun to decide B2B, this is just maybe one of the options we pursue. There remain other options. There are other things that we have decided on. There has been a rough consensus that we are not going to charge a fee. We are going to maintain the basic DAO summoning as a public good. 
            - UI: we took a survey and we got some info, we got info about us as a group. Focused the lens on us. And then how is it useful to know that info. We know what we are going to find enthusiasm and good ideas. That it is an observation about us. Orient info, that the decision is about us. We haven't gathered the reality of this direction 
            - Jord: which is kind of why I'd like to see a proposal. doesn't have to be consensus - small working group should in whatever detail that seems necessary. What are actionable steps given this info? 
            - UI: question is how would we approach that? delegate a group to get a pitch together - specific accountability to a group to come back. 
            - Travisw: how those people will be taking away attention from other initiatives 
            - Ven: all envision - spencer's point and UI's that this is just if and we can iterate on this report. It's just an iteration. Some things we kind of signaled, but also things we have recognized. 
                - what options are remaining and balanced to gain value
                - This is the next part of the conversation. The working group may find things, but we aren't there now
            - Jord: a lot of people felt we should take action soon
            - Ven: research and thought that can be brought to the group. Very big problem. Agreed we want to focus some resources on it. Working groups can focus on generation itself. What kind of resources are required for this? yes, we should be moving on it
            - Dekan: we need to focus on shipping, v3 infra and devrel don't want to take away from that. Lots of people we might be able to delegate - no magesmiths on this 
            - Ven: small team for now, not changing anything going on elsewhere 
            - UI: even without concrete step by step plan - it could be creating values that we can align with - we value creating relationships with dev community over writing articles or things like this 
- The report was great and useful. Thanks to everyone that filled it out - there will likely be more to come to help make decisions 

## Discussion Distilled

Pulling from the discussion above, here is a distilled version of the notes highlighting possible goals, initiaitives, and notable ideas to pursue.

### Goals
- Determining if what we are building now aligns with our sustainability goals in the future
- Provide clear understanding of what we _aren't_ going to focus on as much as what we are going to focus on 
- Determining how we approach gathering agreement across the DAO (and uberhaus)
    - Signal voting
    - Ratifying a document of some kind 
    - Uberhaus involvement 
- Getting an understanding of where we might fail / if people even want to do the work we are proposing / if we have the resources and skillsets to do the work

### Initiatives:
- Look at previous and post mortems and see where went wrong, market appetite - what are people looking for? Inventory of what we can offer, maybe there is more here we can offer that we know of. Introspection, formation, inventory
    - DAOstillery review?
- Pitching / getting together ideas for us to all discuss/vote on 
- If B2B is agreed as strong direction:
    - Sales and marketing - needs understand on what a dedicated workstream look like
    - At what point will we want to start dedicating roles to this? Is there enough now or is it after we build some portion of v3?
    - Should yeeter get a more focused workstream? 
- Continued Devrel for allowing others to build on our systems - how does this fit into our B2B understanding?
- Work on collecting sentiment from the community, is there a market for the solutions we are proposing? 
- Wrap in competative research 

### Ideas
- Positioning software to be data library first and core UI (ex. AWS services - freemium model?)
- Encouraging others to use our software as a public good - encouraging collaborative competition - devrel?
    - Services for teams, helping them with specialized consulting or building for them
- we _must_ have core ui, there is no B2B before this happens
- B2B: custom interfaces as service? Where is cut off on free vs you need custom now? 
    - building streamlined interfaces that do exactly what community needs 





